Illinois was set to become the twelfth state to provide medically assisted suicide. On Sept. 11 a federal judge issued a last-minute temporary restraining order to block the state’s “medical aid in dying” law that was set to take effect on Sept. 12. The End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act (EOLOA) would allow terminally ill adults to request life-ending medication after meeting specific eligibility requirements and completing a formal request process.
The temporary restraining order came after Catholic leaders on behalf of Catholic health care workers who opposed certain portions of the law, argued that the law forces them to participate in activities that conflict with their religious convictions. According to the lawsuit, requirements to discuss assisted suicide as an option, provide referrals to participating providers, or refrain from discouraging patients from pursuing assisted suicide amount to compelled speech and religious coercion. They argue that these provisions violate protections under the First Amendment, including freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, as well as due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit also raises claims related to church autonomy, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The dispute centers on provisions governing healthcare professionals and institutions that object to participating in assisted suicide. While the law permits providers to decline direct involvement, the plaintiffs argue it goes further by requiring them to refer patients to healthcare providers willing to assist in obtaining life-ending medication.
Cardinal Blasé Cupich said in a statement after the judge’s ruling, “I welcome this decision of the court that stays the enforcement of the provisions of the Illinois End-of-Life Options for Terminally Ill Patients Act that require healthcare providers, against their conscience, to participate in assisted suicide. These obligations violate core constitutional protections of freedom of speech and religion. The law with these provisions must be struck down permanently. To be clear, the Church’s objection to this statute is not an attempt to impose Catholic teaching on non-Catholics; it is an effort to stop the State from compelling Catholic health care providers to violate their conscience.”
The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to permanently prevent Illinois from enforcing the disputed provisions against them. They also want the law declared unconstitutional.
One of the physicians involved in the case, Dr. Mary Keen Kirchoff, welcomed the temporary ruling, saying it allows her to focus on patient care without fear of professional penalties. “For months I’ve faced the real possibility that I could lose my license, be fined, or even face criminal charges simply for refusing to promote or refer patients toward death,” Kirchoff said in a statement. “I’m relieved the state agreed to pause enforcement while the courts weigh in.”
Executive Vice President Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society characterized the agreement as an early victory for faith-based healthcare providers. Breen argued that the state should not have the authority to compel religious institutions or physicians to participate in actions they consider morally wrong. He pledged to continue challenging the law until the disputed provisions are struck down. The temporary restraining order does not resolve the broader legal questions surrounding EOLOA. Instead, it preserves the status quo while the federal court considers whether a longer-term injunction is warranted. The case is expected to become a significant test of the balance between expanding end-of-life options for terminally ill patients and protecting the religious liberty rights of healthcare providers who object to participating in assisted suicide.
PRAY: Pray this push within the West to embrace a culture of death both in the womb and at the end of life would end and that all life would be cherished and valued once more.